Remove vegetation that could compete with planted non-woody plants: freshwater wetlands

How is the evidence assessed?
  • Effectiveness
    not assessed
  • Certainty
    not assessed
  • Harms
    not assessed

Study locations

Key messages

  • Three studies evaluated the effects, on emergent non-woody vegetation planted in freshwater wetlands, of removing competing plants. All three studies were in the USA. Two studies used the same experimental wet basins but planted different species.

VEGETATION COMMUNITY

 

VEGETATION ABUNDANCE

  • Herb abundance (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in wet meadows in the USA found removing an invasive species with herbicide before sowing mixed grass and forb seeds increased the total biomass of sown species after 1–2 growing seasons, but that burning to remove the invasive species had no significant effect on sown species biomass.
  • Individual species abundance (1 study): One replicated, paired, controlled study in wet basins in the USA found that the effect of weeding to remove competitors on lake sedge Carex lacustris biomass and density, in the three years after planting, depended on the year and water level.

VEGETATION STRUCTURE

  • Height (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the height of planted sedges. One of the studies found that weeding had no significant effect on the height of planted tussock sedge Carex stricta in three of three years. The other study found that weeding reduced the average height of lake sedge Carex lacustris in the first year after planting, but had no significant effect in the following two years.

OTHER

  • Survival (2 studies): Two replicated, paired, controlled studies in wet basins in the USA examined the effect of weeding to remove competitors on the survival of planted sedges Carex spp. Both studies found that weeding had no significant effect on sedge survival in at least two of three years. One of the studies found that weeding affected tussock sedge Carex stricta survival in the second year after planting, but that the direction of the effect depended on plot elevation.

About key messages

Key messages provide a descriptive index to studies we have found that test this intervention.

Studies are not directly comparable or of equal value. When making decisions based on this evidence, you should consider factors such as study size, study design, reported metrics and relevance of the study to your situation, rather than simply counting the number of studies that support a particular interpretation.

Supporting evidence from individual studies

  1. A replicated, paired, controlled, before-and-after study in 1995–1997 in three recently excavated wet basins in Minnesota, USA (Budelsky & Galatowitsch 2000) found that weeding to remove competitors had no significant effect on survival of planted lake sedge Carex lacustris, but that effects on sedge abundance and height depended on other factors. The study generally does not report data for the comparisons in this summary. In each of three years, the survival rate of planted sedges was statistically similar in weeded and unweeded plots. The effect of weeding on sedge above-ground biomass, stem density and height depended on time since planting, elevation and/or water regime. For example, in all three years, weeding increased sedge biomass/m2 in higher/drier plots but had no significant effect in lower, wetter plots. The average height of sedge shoots was lower in weeded than unweeded plots in the first year, but there was no significant difference between treatments in the second and third years. Methods: Forty-eight 5-m2 plots were established, in 12 sets of four, across three wet basins (same as in Study 2). In May 1995, nursery-reared lake sedge was planted into each bare plot (10 or 45 plants/plot). Twenty-four plots (2 plots/set) were weeded (colonizing plants removed) throughout the study. The plots were situated at four different elevations, and each basin had a different water regime (falling, stable or rising through each growing season). Vegetation was surveyed through the 1995, 1996 and 1997 growing seasons.

    Study and other actions tested
  2. A replicated, paired, controlled study in 1995–1997 in three recently excavated wet basins in Minnesota, USA (Budelsky & Galatowitsch 2004) found that weeding to remove competitors had no significant effect on the height of planted tussock sedge Carex stricta, and that effect on sedge survival depended on other factors. In each of three years, the height of planted sedges was statistically similar in weeded and unweeded plots (data not reported). Weeding had no significant effect on sedge survival in the first and third years after planting. In the second year, weeding increased planted sedge survival at high elevations (weeded: 100%; unweeded: 57%) but reduced sedge survival at low elevations (weeded: 38%; unweeded: 96%). The study also reported data on biomass/plant and shoot number/plant. The effect of weeding on these metrics depended on time since planting, elevation and/or water regime (see original paper). Methods: Forty-eight 5-m2 plots were established, in 12 sets of four, across three wet basins (same as in Study 1). In May 1995, nursery-reared tussock sedge was planted into each bare plot (10 or 45 plants/plot). Twenty-four plots (2 plots/set) were weeded (colonizing plants removed) throughout the study. The plots were situated at four different elevations, and each basin had a different water regime (falling, stable or rising through each growing season). Vegetation was surveyed through the 1995, 1996 and 1997 growing seasons.

    Study and other actions tested
  3. A replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in 2000–2004 in two wet meadows Minnesota, USA (Reinhardt Adams & Galatowitsch 2006) found that the effect of removing invasive reed canarygrass Phalaris arundinacea before sowing mixed grass and forbs seeds depended on the removal method. After 1–2 growing seasons, plots sprayed with herbicide contained more biomass of sown species (total: 0–70 g/m2) than unsprayed plots (total: 0 g/m2). Sprayed plots also contained less canarygrass biomass (10–480 g/m2) than unsprayed plots (420–880 g/m2). In contrast, burned plots contained a statistically similar overall biomass of sown species – and canarygrass – to unburned plots (data not reported). The pattern of results was the same for non-sown and total vegetation biomass (see Actions: Use prescribed fire to control problematic plants and Use herbicide to control problematic plants). Methods: In the early 2000s, one hundred and sixty 25-m2 plots were established, in 40 sets of four, across two canarygrass-invaded wet meadows. One hundred and twenty plots (three random plots/set) were sprayed with herbicide (Roundup® Ultra): in May, August or September and in one or two years. Eighty plots (20 random sets) were burned in spring. Some plots therefore received neither, one, or both removal treatments. All plots were sown with a mixture of grass and forb seeds in the spring after the final removal treatment. Dry biomass samples were taken in August, 1–2 growing seasons after sowing.

    Study and other actions tested
Please cite as:

Taylor N.G., Grillas P., Smith R.K. & Sutherland W.J. (2021) Marsh and Swamp Conservation: Global Evidence for the Effects of Interventions to Conserve Marsh and Swamp Vegetation. Conservation Evidence Series Synopses. University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Where has this evidence come from?

List of journals searched by synopsis

All the journals searched for all synopses

Marsh and Swamp Conservation

This Action forms part of the Action Synopsis:

Marsh and Swamp Conservation
Marsh and Swamp Conservation

Marsh and Swamp Conservation - Published 2021

Marsh and Swamp Synopsis

What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 18

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.


Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape Programme Red List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Bern wood Supporting Conservation Leaders National Biodiversity Network Sustainability Dashboard Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx British trust for ornithology Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Butterfly Conservation People trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust